Contradicting Popular Opinion
A.K.A.
An Enquiry Concerning Why Your Favorite Movie Sucks: 28 days later… Edition
If you make a horror film, don’t be afraid to call it a horror film. I can’t stand movies that self-label as “psychological thriller”or “Gothic chiller” or “atmosphere movie” or whatever euphemism they are using now. It seems like people are afraid of that label: horror.
I’ve never been able to figure it out. Is it a way to distance oneself from the slasher films of the 80s? Is it an attempt to make the movie sound sophisticated? Is it a fear of sounding silly?
I have to believe it is a case of hedging bets. Horror fans are going to go to a horror movie no matter how it is labeled. If they like it, it’s a horror picture. If they don’t like it, they might adopt the movie’s chosen euphemism to deny that it was a horror picture in the first place.
“The movie was really slow, but I guess it was because it was a psychological thriller.”
Now, non-horror fans, or perhaps horror non-fans, won’t be scared off by the movie’s less harsh label.
“I don’t like horror movies, but let’s go see this atmospheric period piece.”
It’s all about the labeling, the lack of labeling, and the framing.
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the movies themselves. It says nothing of their quality, only of their marketing.
Today we’re going to talk about a monster movie where people are chased by zombies.
28 days later…
28 days later is a film that attempts realism by means of subtraction. It was very careful not to label itself as a monster movie. It was very careful to avoid the “zed word.” It was careful to avoid any implications of the supernatural. It didn’t want the glossy Hollywood look of most movie and was shot mostly with handheld Digital cameras. It didn’t want the over-the-top characters, ridiculous situations, and fantastic stunts of horror or action movies. 28 days later… is all about taking away, peeling off the layers of the monster movie.
This would be fine if what was left was any good. The problem is that they just took a normal monster movie and then stripped away all of the fun. What’s left is a movie that isn’t good in and of itself and looks even worse when compared to the hundred or so better movies that are just like it.
As a horror film, it is a failure. The monsters just aren’t scary. They don’t seem to have any special powers or abilities, other than causing further infection. They aren’t particularly cunning or dangerous. The zombies just seem to be running around like Pheobe in that episode of “Friends” where she and Rachel start jogging together. They don’t appear to be doing anything all too shocking or horrifying. More silly than scary really. The zombies might be eating flesh, but I can’t really tell with the horrible quality of the digital film.
I know the shitty camera work is supposed to add to the “real reality realness” of the picture. That’s all fine and dandy, provided I can see what the f*ck is happening. Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre has masterful editing and grainy footage to add to it a sense of realism and chaos. It grounds the picture and makes these strange and horrifying things believable. 28 days later… on the other hand, is just a film that was poorly shot in dark locations with crappy digital technology.
Besides, if you are going to strive for realism, research. For instance, in real life, we don’t hear and see distant explosions at the same time. We do in 28 days later… though. Light travels much faster than sound. We’d see, then hear. Kind of like we see lightning then hear thunder. (Movies always get that wrong too.)
If you are going to use and name a real location, know it’s geography. 28 days later… simply doesn’t care. (Why bother saying you’re on the M602, if you are just going to make up fictional wooded area around it?)
When British soldiers say “repeat” they are talking about artillery fire. They wouldn’t use it in lieu of “restate.” Do your research.
We’re not even going to mention a certain infamous driving scene in the movie that is patently impossible.
If you are going to profess realism, you gotta walk the walk.
Oh, and the spread of the infection doesn’t follow logic in terms of what we know. The virus shows unmistakable symptoms almost immediately. There wouldn’t be unknown carriers. It would be pretty easy to control by simple quarantine. It probably couldn’t spread to an area outside of the UK.
Do your research!
I might have gotten a little off topic there.
As a horror movie, it doesn’t work. The monster’s aren’t particularly scary. The damage has already been done to the cities, so that isn’t at stake. What basic fear are they trying to tap?
Say what you want about gore, but movies with a lot of gore are understandable. The most basic fear of a creature is of being opened up by something else. Being cut open, leaking, seeing oneself or a loved one as mere meat, as utterly mortal, this is primal. This is how a good slasher film can work. Gore is all at once shocking and life-affirming.
28 days later… tends to shun this thing. That’s fine, but doesn’t seem to want to replace it with anything either. They don’t play up a fear of assimilation like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They travel quite a bit, so there isn’t really the dread that comes from claustrophobia. There isn’t really a fear of the unknown. A firm separation is in place between the infected and uninfected. There isn’t a middle ground where one might be turning. There isn’t a question of how long can I trust so and so. There is no tension after being infected. That’s it, it’s done.
Let’s pretend, for a second, that it’s not a horror movie. It certainly isn’t a comedy nor an action movie. It ain’t high drama by any stretch. It’s not really a love story. I guess it could be a chase movie, but a chase movie with monsters is just a horror movie.
I’ve heard the film referred to as a character study. I guess it is a character study that explores the deep and interesting personalities of some guy, some other guy, that kid, and the black chick.
Seriously, a character study is dependent on the movie having actual characters. They could be either interesting, relatable, competent, whatever you want really. The people of 28 days later seem intentionally 2 dimensional (more subtraction I guess). There is little in terms of a shared back story. None of the main characters even has a last name. The actions and personality of character A are pretty much interchangeable with those of character B.
It is easy to contrast this with one of this movie’s many inspirations, Night of the Living Dead. With Barbara, we meet her brother, they have a clear and understandable relationship. There are implications that she has a life outside the movie. She experiences trauma, and is traumatized. The viewer experiences this with her and can easily understand the character. We probably know less in terms of history about Night‘s lead, Ben. But, from the moment Ben is onscreen he proves himself strong, decisive, resourceful, and above all else, competent. Viewers like competence. The audience loves a man who is good at his job. Then we have Mr. Cooper. He’s a dick, but his perspective is valid and consistent.
28 days later… offers very little in terms of character development. Frankly, we know more about Barbara’s brother Johnny in NOtLD than we do about any of these characters.
It is a failure as a character study.
What about plot?
Rule #1 of Screen-writing (don’t take me literally on this: in screen-writing ever rule is #1) : Your ending should be surprising, but inevitable.
To get all Zen on you, it should be a surprise without being a surprise.
28 days later… just ends.
“Oh, what’s all this then? Here are the good guys! I guess we’re done with all those nasties then. Gosh, this mechanical god sure has nice fingernails.”
Upon reviewing the DVD extras it becomes very apparent that Danny Boyle started filming when he had half of a script. Vastly different alternate endings, differing climaxes, etc are not the signs of a well thought-out movie.
Now, that isn’t to say that you can’t adjust characters to actor’s performances or change who lives and who dies, or alter plot points. That’s fine provided one thing: you know what your movie is about. You know the story you are trying to tell, the overall theme of the piece.
By knowing these things, one scene can logically lead to the next. At the moment of resolution, things become apparent that weren’t apparent before. Your brain goes, “Oh that’s why that earlier scene was important! It all makes sense now. That was surprising, but inevitable!”
With 28 days later… very few of the scenes seem essential. Take the opening. Why do we care about the rage infested monkeys? I know that they are going to spread the infection, mind you, but why is this important? Would our characters know this or just be confused about the source of the zombification? Do our characters use this information to fight the monsters? Is it to establish some sort of overall anti-science theme to the movie? Anti-medical testing? If memory serves a PETA-like organization frees the monkey. Is the message of the movie that PETA is a bunch of idiots? (I’d rather like that message.)
Later on the movie introduces us to soldiers. In a shocking twist, seen only in just about every other monster movie, the soldiers can at times seem like the real monsters. Not only is in an unoriginal message, but it doesn’t exist beyond that segment of the movie.
It is just a bad movie through and through, with flat characters, a plot that is both very derivative and highly flawed, poorly shot, without a comprehensive theme, with an ending held on by duct tape.
28 days later basically plays like a compilation of tapes made by a crappy digital camera pointed in the general direction of some stuff. It has little to no redeeming qualities. I can’t even say something like, “At least it isn’t House of the Dead.” That movie was more enjoyable because it wore its utter incompetence like a badge of honor
What else to watch
Let’s stick to non-zombie movies , just for fun.
For a movie that was touted by some critics as being so f*cking original, I sure don’t see it. Every interview or article about this movie seems to list something else as an “inspiration.” There is 1962’s The Day of the Triffids that features some man-eating mutant plants. There is the novel I Am Legend which has already been made into 1964’s The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price, 1971’s The Omega Man with good ole Chuck, and 1984’s Night of the Coment which replaces the lead man with valley girls.
But I don’t think I’d go so far as to recommend any of those flicks.
28 days later… does bare some resemblance to Romero’s under-appreciated flick, The Crazies. I’ll recommend that as a much smarter movie, hell a much better movie. It’s all about Vietnam and has some weird incest stuff going on.
1977’s Rabid should also go on the “what else to watch list.” It’s a really interesting take on vampirism and mass-quarantine. It also stars a porn star!
IMDB lists 1979’s The Warriors as being referenced in 28 days later…, so I’m recommending that one too. “CAN YOU DIG IT!?” I don’t know if Brad did a Mondo Culto on it yet, but I’m too lazy to look.
And Carnosaur. I’m recommending Carnosaur.
The sequels
I asked for crappy sequels to pretty good movies. Here is what you all gave me, followed briefly by your overall impressions when merited. Everyone stuck to number twos, avoiding the horrors of Rocky 3, Batman and Robin, Beverly Hills cop 3, Star Trek V, etc. Random order.
The Lost World: Jurrasic Park 2
Odd Couple 2
Die Harder
Jaws 2 :not terrible, but a little boring.
Predator 2 : Cool, but it ain’t no Predator 1.
Speed 2
Piranha 2 : (Made by James Cameron!) Thoughts ranged from “good sequel” to “suh-hucks.”
American Werewolf in Paris : A “sort of” sequel, that is “sort of” awful.
Poltergeist 2 : not terrible, but a big step down.
Tremors 2:
Hannibal
Children of the Corn 2
Stayin’ Alive
Mortal Kombat 2
Darkman 2: Huge gap in quality.
Howling 2 : Possibly the worst sequel ever.
Shock Treatment : (sequel to Rocky Horror)
Trancers 2 : with the addition of any Charles Band/Full Moon sequel save Puppetmaster 2
Toxic Avenger 2: with the addition of any Troma sequel
Aliens : (We here at CPO completely disagree.)
The Prophecy 2
Candyman 2: Farewell to the Flesh
John Carpenter’s Vampires 2
Bloodsport 2
Return of the Living Dead: Part II
Last but not least, the strange homosexual “coming out” story of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2
